User:Tiddly Tom/Admin coaching

Why I want the mop?

Well, I think the biggest reason is to help the encyclopaedia. Is that not why we are all here? ;) I have taken a keen interest in anti-vandalism work, CSD and AfD less so. I would like to help out at AIV to BLOCK users who vandalise and do detrimental work for the quality of the encyclopaedia. I know as well as the next guy that CSD can get very backlogged, and even more so when IPs will be allowed to make pages.

Okay – that's a good start. Now we need to expand it beyond "I want to help" to "I can benefit the encyclopedia by X and Y and occasionally Z, while never ever going down the V or D roads."

Agenda::Checklist::Goals

A list of things we should try to achieve – a list we work on together.

what do admins really do, and what part of the admin job is most interesting to you? what is least interesting?

reading: I've given a few places and pages to get you started. Come back to them as we go along, because some of it won't be very useful right now but will give you light-bulb moments pretty soon. :-) What else would you like to read about?

exercises & so on: I've seen several exercises, and I'll use some of them as we go – blocking, CSD, and other things. There aren't very many black-and-white, right-or-wrong answers. Some parts of the job require admins to think and react quickly, while others require investigation and careful analysis followed by deliberate action. You need to know which is which, and how to tell the difference.

Admin "dos"

always assume good faith if at all possible.
always be civil, even when you're being lambasted for an egregious mistake. Apologize when you fail to be civil, more than once if necessary. Keep your sarcasm to yourself or to other admins.
always check both sides of the story. If editor A has made a report to WP:AN3 about editor B, check to see if editor A violated 3RR also. (It happens quite frequently, to the astonishment and vehement 'unblock me!' shouts of editor As everywhere. AN3 is a fascinating place.)
there's a balance between unilateral action and discussion – try to get it right. In other words, if you think an edit or action is going to be reverted, try to get consensus first. If it's not controversial, go ahead and do it.
stay neutral in disputes. If you've given your opinion about something or have edited an article in a certain way, don't participate in a dispute about it. Recuse yourself. This can be a challenge because some people can't _not_ give their opinion about something.

Admin "don'ts"

do/be the opposite of any of the above!

Reading list

To start, here are a few things to ponder:

User:CatherineMunro#Why am I here? is a great essay, with many points to ponder. Y Read

User:Mindspillage/admin is Kat Walsh, who is a member of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. I've found I agree with Kat on most aspects of adminship, except I have no trouble blocking to stop edit wars or vandalism in progress. I would rather protect a page than block for 3RR because page protection forces discussion, but I'll block if I have to. (A great example of page protection instead of blocking is at Steam (content delivery), which was in the middle of a nasty dispute. They're on their way to a vastly-improved article now, and I love it!) Y Read

Essjay's neutrality essay was deleted when Essjay resigned and left the project – I'm sure you heard about that little tiff somewhere. If you haven't, you should read about it and learn its lessons. (It happened less than a year ago, and the talk page already has 12 archives.) However, since it was GFDL licensed in the first place, Lar retrieved the text (which we all-powerful admins can do) and placed it in Akradecki's user space at User:Akradecki/Admin coaching/Essjay neutrality. I think it's difficult to develop such a hands-off approach to _everything_, but I see his point. Y Read

However, and this is a BIG however, this essay was written in his persona as a double-degreed, tenured professor of theology, so you should look at it through those eyes and not those of Ryan Jordan.

User:Cecropia – Cecropia is a bureaucrat – incidentally, he is the bureaucrat who closed my RFA and promoted me – has great advice on when to protect/unprotect and when to _threaten_ a block. Threats sometimes work much better than blocks, and they taste a little better with substantially fewer calories.Y Read

NoSeptember's Admin Project is really interesting, but I don't think you should look at it too closely just yet. He has a _lot_ of statistics and analysis about RFAs and their results – close to 100 pages in all – and I don't want you bogged down in that kind of stuff right now. When we get closer to your RFA, I'll point you toward it.

Deletion and notability

Have you ever nominated any articles for deletion, either through WP:PROD or WP:AFD? If so, make a short list here with the AFD discussions – five or ten will do. (If you successfully prodded an article and remember its title, list that too, and I'll get the article's text for us.) If not, try to find two or three articles that seem to fail the notability standards for one reason or another – don't nominate them yet, just list them here. Then we'll talk about deletion – but we can't talk about deletion without notability, which goes hand-in-hand with its big brother, verifiability. See you soon! - KrakatoaKatie 07:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done some prods I think, not recently though... I am pretty sure I have never started an Afd but have participated in some. I am going to go do something from above now, then I will probably leave more of a reply. I am going to go across to Admin Coaching page first though, to change status and remove me from the list. Tiddly-Tom 09:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved my request, noticed you had already updated you status. I thought you'd died! Hadn't done edits in about 4 days! Tiddly-Tom 09:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As Christmas approaches, I may be MIA for 3 or 4 days straight because I've got a _lot_ of knitting left to do. Both of my parents and my brother have their birthdays in November and December, so I have to knit for their birthdays and then turn right back around and knit for Christmas. I poke my head in here from time to time to make sure the backlogs aren't out of control, then I pop back out and go knit some more. The five day AFD backlog has finally been cleared, and that's the one I usually work on. Other than Thanksgiving weekend, which is November 22 this year (the earliest calendar date it can be), I'll check in regularly. Thanksgiving weekend has way too much football to watch for me to be bothered with this dinky little website. :-D - KrakatoaKatie 22:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Knitting, Hehe :) Never tried it my self, what do you knit? Tiddly-Tom 07:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've been gone - family and real life interfere sometimes. Mainly, I knit socks, but I have some other projects on the needles now too. Can't be specific until gifts have been opened. :-) - KrakatoaKatie 02:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Prod

Just prodded John Copeland Buckstone.

Deleted 5 mins later (no reason given) recreated again later, Speeded A7.

Okay... when you see a new page that doesn't assert notability – meaning it doesn't say why the subject should be in the encyclopedia – you can and should nominate it for CSD under WP:CSD#A7. Think of it as a three-tiered process - CSD first, then prod, then AFD. It's fine to prod it first, but CSD is faster. Also, some admins won't speedy-delete an article that was prodded unsuccessfully, although I'm not one of them.

It's been recreated again, so now you should nominate it for AFD if you think the guy isn't notable (and I agree that he's not). I could go ahead and delete it again myself, under A7, but AFD will establish a community consensus in case the article is recreated yet again (WP:CSD#G4), which prod and CSD deletions don't do.

Follow the steps at WP:AFD - the category will be B since it's a (kind of sad) biographical entry. Make a convincing statement, including how often it's been recreated – on the 'history' page, click 'view logs for this page'. This article is about the son of a notable actor, and notability is not inherited. An article on the man's daughter, Lucy Isabella Buckstone, was created by the same editor, and you could also nominate it for deletion using the same argument. I wouldn't pair the two under the same AFD, though.

I'd like you to start looking at the brand-spanking new new pages patrol feature, nominating non-notable and other inappropriate articles for speedy deletion as you go. Don't do it for hours at a time, but work on it for 20-30 minutes and then go do something else for a while, then lather-rinse-repeat. Have the CSD page open in another browser window or tab as you go for quick reference. Remember, A7 is for articles that do not assert notability, not for short articles or hoaxes or odd/unfamiliar subjects. If it's unreferenced but asserts notability (like "he is known as the best widget seller in German history" or "the Zoombamasha whatchadoodle has 8,000,304 users in Sweden alone"), it should go to prod or AFD.

You need to participate at AFD and demonstrate your knowledge of the deletion criteria, deletion policy, and deletion process before your RFA. Regardless of leanings toward inclusionism or deletionism, unreferenced articles on non-notable subjects need to be deleted from Wikipedia, else the quality of our entire encyclopedia is diminished. Deleting articles is one of the things we do most often as admins. You don't have to be perfect at it before an RFA, but you do need a good grasp on the subject because you _will_ be asked about it if you haven't participated very much.

Next week, I'll give you a CSD exercise and show you how to do non-admin closure of AFDs. Get your feet wet for a few days at NPP and I'll check on your progress. See you soon! :-D KrakatoaKatie 02:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

John Smeaton (baggage handler)

The title made me a little curious ;) You don't see many articles on baggage handlers. If I was to do something it would be an WP:AfD for WP:N#TEMP - Notability is not temporary. What you think?

I agree with your analysis _if_ recipients of the QGM are not granted notability because they have received that decoration. I'm an American and we don't knight people or have a queen to knight us, so I don't know the answer to my own question.

This might be a good place to discuss notability and importance based on one's own nationality. I've seen British editors go down the list of American college marching bands with prod/CSD tags, and I've seen American editors do the same to cricketers or football (soccer, to me) players. Personally, when I come across a CSD or prod of a non-American athlete or sport or guru or celebrity, I generally move on without deleting it. My reasoning: it's not up to me to judge how notable a Sikh guru/priest is to the Sikhs, and I don't know all the different levels of league play in Australia for cricket. If I recklessly acted without so much as a milliliter of knowledge on those subjects, I could cause a ton or more of bad feelings and Wiki-drama. To me, that's the road to burnout and has done a good deal of damage to Wikipedia's reputation.

There are many admins who have no trouble with deleting any article they feel doesn't measure up – they would happily delete an article on an NFL Pro Bowl linebacker without knowing a thing about American football (which would be really, really, really bad). I'm simply saying that we all have limits and can't know everything about everything, and I recognize my limitations.

What do you think – should admins be cautious like me or bold and fearless like... well, not like me? (There's no right answer.)

When ever I try and do something reckless - such as CSD tag an article I am not 100% sure about - it turns out wrong :P If I was to become admin, I'd be happy to start off slowly within areas I know and expand the areas I work in as I get more experience in admin areas. I think I will leave this article because he is getting the medal (not familiar with it however - although I do know that 1000s of people get awards every year) Tiddly-Tom 07:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

exercises, exercises, we must do our exercises

I'm working on your deletion exercise I mentioned, and I think I'll have it done by Friday. When this link goes blue, head on over there! :-) - KrakatoaKatie 21:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Cool :) Will do. Tiddly-Tom 07:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

non-admin AFD closures!

Time to get your feet wet with non-admin AFD closure. Go through the AFD logs for the last few days and find one or two that are unambiguous keepers. Follow the directions at WP:DPR#AFD, and close it. It's not hard to do, as long as you understand what a clear consensus of 'keep' is and if you can follow the directions. Before your signature on the closure statement, be sure to add 'non-admin closure'. I did non-admin AFD closures before my RFA, and keeps are actually harder procedures than deletes, so it's a great way to get familiar with the deletion process. Be sure you know what a speedy keep is too. Don't bother closing a 'delete' debate, because it's pointless. We have to delete it, so we may as well close it to make sure everything's done correctly.

After you've finished each one, list it here and I'll double check it for you.

Anders Skauge <== good!

Bhogali Bihu <==good!

Difficulty Level

Animals of finland

Glasvegas

Still Life (1974 film)

MyHeritage

Chris Redfield

Demonoid <== and all of the above are terrific!

All done correctly with the Ts crossed and the Is dotted! I'm confident in your ability, so don't worry about listing them here anymore. If you close one that for some reason ends up in WP:DRV – which won't happen if you stick to clear, unambiguous, definite, set-in-stone, no-doubt-about-it 'keeps' – let me know.

A couple of pointers:
- For AFDs, be sure to put {{subst:at}} above the headline, not below. It's really important for Mathbot's output of open/closed discussions at WP:AFD/Old – if the tag isn't above the headline, Mathbot counts it 'open'.
  
  I fixed it; see this diff.
  
  Also, the only thing that goes in bold is the result. Everything else, like 'non-admin closure', is in plain text.
  
  Example (see the code)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clearly meets WP:BIO, plenty of reliable sources. - KrakatoaKatie 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Foobar

discuss, discuss, discuss

keep, keep, keep

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I also want you to put WP:AN and WP:ANI on your daily list of things to check, if you haven't done so.

Finally, I'd like you to do a little more article writing for a bit. Your contributions are clearly vandalism heavy, and I think it would be good for your RFA success chances if you were to step out of the area of schools and the BBC for a couple of weeks to become a bit more rounded. I say this because there is a new admin who is having (and causing) some trouble right now, and as a result RFA may become a little harder. Check the current ANI thread about 'Controversial block needs review' and look at the new admin's talk page and block logs. He just started using the tools willy nilly, including AFD closure, apparently without reading or discussing anything with anyone. He blocked Jehochman, for crying out loud, and if you haven't read about that, you should.

You could try the dead-end pages if you'd like to expand articles. I've found a lot of stuff that needs to be tagged or nominated for deletion, but I've also found some real gems in there. Category:Dead-end pages from December 2007 and Category:Dead-end pages from January 2008 are full of ideas. Articles for creation is great too. You can start them (if they're appropriate, of course) and then leave them for someone else to expand.

Okay, I'm off to do my own reading. Maybe I'll get to work on an article soon! :-) - KrakatoaKatie 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Workflow

Almost forgot two things.

First, 'unambiguous keep' doesn't necessarily mean 'unanimous keep'. If there are 7 'keeps' and one 'delete', and policy (notability, BLP, etc.) allows the article to be kept, that's an unambiguous keep too. You should stay away from discussions that are a serious mixture of keep & delete, like 3 to 4, 6 to 2, and so on. If you do a discussion that calls for a merge, let me know and I'll show you how to do it. You can close unambiguous 'merge' AFDs too, because they're keeps. There are templates to use for merge-to and merge-from pages that are harder to find.

Second, you need a workflow to do AFD closure or commenting with any kind of coordination or ease, and you really should have some apps to help you. I use a Mac, so I can help you with some great apps if you're a Mac user. If not, you should find:

a text substitution app, that takes an abbreviation you type, like '+afd1', and expands it to '{{subst:afd1}}' - I use TextExpander for Leopard
a clipboard utility that saves a gazillion clipboards – I use PTHPasteboard Pro, also for Leopard

If you're on a PC, you should try out as many apps as you need to find the right ones for you. TextExpander alone has saved me almost 7 hours of typing in the last 6 months, so we're talking serious time savings here. PTHPasteboard is useful with AFDs but it's more useful for editing work.

Here's my workflow for AFDs, both closing and commenting:

Have the AFD log page (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 18) open in a browser tab or window.
Go down the list, briefly considering each, until you reach one you believe has had enough discussion, keep or delete - doesn't matter which one, but we'll use keeps here. Let's say you've come across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foobar, and it's an unambiguous 'keep' discussion.
In _another tab or window_ – NOT the /Log one – open the article page (Foobar, not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foobar), and read the article. Check 'what links here' and the article's history, and the article talk page. By this time, you should have your own opinion about the state of the article.
From the article page, click on the 'this article's entry', which of course will take you to the AFD discussion. Read the discussion, and gauge the persuasiveness and content, always keeping Wikipedia policy in mind. This is where the real judgment of an admin comes in, and it can't be taught with coaching. It comes from experience.
When you've reached a decision, click 'edit', remove the category line, and go through the steps at WP:DPR#AFD.
After you've saved the page, click again on the article (Foobar). Remove the AFD notice from the article and place the {{oldafdfull}} AFD result on the article's talk page.
Close the tab/window in which you've been working on the article, leaving the /Log page as your only open tab/window.

You can now go down the remainder of the list to continue work. You don't need to manually refresh very often unless you've closed several, in which case others have probably closed several themselves and it's time to see what's open and what's closed. - KrakatoaKatie 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Once you get the flow, your AFD closing experience will be much more pleasant and less hassle. I could not do it without my little app helpers, so find some that you like and start using them. Thus endeth the Workflow Lesson. :-) KrakatoaKatie 07:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

After a quick look around I could not find any apps, especially as I am reluctant to install programs from unknown publishers. I use a PC by the way. Am I expected to contribute in much discussions on AN/I or AN or just read and be aware? Tiddly-Tom 19:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Try VersionTracker; their feedback is usually pretty accurate, at least on the Mac side. Just get used to reading AN & ANI. If you want to chime in, feel free. I don't post that often myself. - KrakatoaKatie 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I alowed to relist entries with only one or two opitons? Or is that only for admins? A while ago you mentioned blocking exercises, do you have them avalable as I somtimes sceem to run out of things and begin my vandal hunting again :P Tiddly-Tom 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can relist any AFD you feel has not had enough discussion or has not reached a consensus, be it keep or delete. Crawl through my contributions in the 'Wikipedia' namespace to see how I do it, 'cause I've done dozens of them.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend :( here - I get the hiding, but what did you do at the top? Also, do you transclude something - or copy the code for the re list announcement? I'll get on with the stuff you mention below. Tiddly-Tom 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking and page protection

I've got to wait on the blocking exercise, 'cause a good friend was killed in a terrible car crash Sunday morning and I'm not going to be here for a few days, until after the funeral Wednesday. Of course, you can keep up vandal hunting! As you ~~play whack-a-mole~~ go through your reverting/warning activities, think about it from an admin's viewpoint... at what point would you block the IP/username you're tracking, things like that. If you have any interesting vandals while I'm out, list them here and we'll talk about them. The CVU's IRC channel is the real place for serious vandal hunters - info is on the WP:CVU site near the bottom. I can revert vandalism and see it on IRC before the browser page has time to reload sans vandalism. Amazing.

Another thing you could do is follow along at WP:RFPP to get a feel for what should and shouldn't be protected from who and for how long. We often protect a page at WP:AN3 instead of blocking the involved parties, so that should be interesting too. Take a look at the resolved complaints/requests, investigate them, think about what you would do, then compare it to what actually happened or happens. RFPP is in small doses compared to AN3, which is really involved and requires thorough investigation – I made a 3RR block last week but hadn't investigated well enough and I had to turn around and unblock. I missed the autoblock, though, so B had to lift that for me. It's good to know there are others watching my back, and I watch theirs in return. It's okay to make mistakes, 'cause you're going to make some whoppers just like me and everyone else. The key is admitting them, apologizing where necessary, and moving on.

I also want you to start thinking about your answers to The Three Questions™ – we'll set up your RFA page next week (but we won't transclude it to WP:RFA until you're ready!). See you soon – KrakatoaKatie 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to start in area I am familiar with, such as AIV, obvious speedy deletion pages, and clear cut AfDs with the aim of moving into less clear cut or obvious speedy deletions or AfD pages. I would then look into requests for page protections. I would watch the Admins' Noticeboards and help out where I can.

That's good. I'd work your statement at the top, about helping the encyclopedia, in here as well.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think that my all my vandal fighting accounts for my 'Best Contributions', with 1000s of reverts, warns, and around 60 reports to AIV. I am a member of WikiProject BBC and have assessed hundreds if not thousands of articles.

I don't think you should use vandal fighting here – they're asking for your best edits, your best contributions to articles and wikiprojects and so forth. This RFA question is the one of the reasons I want you to have at least a couple of articles to which you've made significant contributions. More below.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Of course I have had my fair share of vandals less then happy for me to revert their edits, and want to let me know about it ;) If users are willing to discuss it, I am happy to talk to them about it, but if all they want to do is be abusive and wont listen to what my self or other users have to say I tend to just leave it and they get bored. I'm always keen to assume good faith, not only with normal editors, but also users who are blocked. I notable example of this is 05kinjac (see talk archive and current talk), Who at first caused a little stress when he told me just to leave it. I was annoyed becomes I was trying to help. I spoke to an admin to get a second option. After Nat explained the facts to the users, I helped Kinjac to fix problems with the article. Since then, we have got on well and I have not adapted him, and after he finishes the school work he is currently working on, I intend to help him, whether I become an admin or not.

Good. What do you mean by you 'have not adapted him'? Do you mean 'adopted'? I guess that's British English or something... ;-)

Yah, I mean 'adopted'! Tiddly-Tom 08:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break the first

Hopefully we can discuss these and change anything I may have not worded clearly. I've been speaking to some friends about what I'm up to on wikipedia and they asked whether they would be allowed to get involved in my RfA. I said probably not as none of them had accounts with many edits or much experience. What is your option? One thing, which I cant recall seeing in other RfA, is something along the lines of a character witness? What do you think? I do not know what time scale you are thinking about, but I start a week long holiday a week on Friday. I am not going away, and so will be at home, and therefore I will be available to answer questions relating to my RfA, so if possible I'd like to have it run from then. Tiddly-Tom 19:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this carefully, and I've looked at your last 5000 edits as well as your overall stats. I want your first RFA to be your last because it succeeds. I want you to be as ready as you can be to take the mop. And I don't think your RFA will succeed if you do it right now.

Here are your overall edit stats as of tonight. The low average edits per page and the almost 1:1 ratio of mainspace to user talk page edits show your chief activity is vandal quashing. That's fine. But you need to point to something in there, besides vandal fighting, that shows you get that we're here to write an encyclopedia. Of course, _I_ know you know that, but you need to show _them_ that you know it.

There are a number of RFA watchers who hold candidates to a definitive standard, although I'm not one of them right now. Some want all candidates to significantly contribute to a GA or FA, while others want substantial contributions to articles and don't require a GA/FA, and still others put a lot of stock in trust and likelihood to not misuse the tools. If you do your nom now, I think your RFA will be one of those that go back and forth between the 'vandal fighter, wants to specialize, it's no big deal' camp and the 'we're here to write an encyclopedia, needs to write articles, can't understand the policies unless he makes NPOV edits' camp. Those RFAs rarely end well.

Here are some relatively recent examples, and I know these differ from your situation in some respects:

OverlordQ's RFA is a good example of an unsuccessful nom of an editor with similar stats to yours. Granted, there are factors in his RFA that you don't have, but you'll note the 'little article work' and 'fails my criteria' comments.
Tiptoety's second RFA is another example. Tiptoety has since been promoted, but you'll note the number of 'vandal reverting doesn't show discretion' and 'contributions are one-dimensional' jabs in his 2nd RFA. Look at the talk page for his stats.
Stwalkerster's first RFA is what happens when those two 'camps' I mentioned get into a lively discussion. It goes back and forth and the candidate is caught in the middle; again, look at the talk page for his stats at the time. I don't want you to go through this kind of scuffle. Stwalkerster is going through RFA right now and it looks as if it will pass easily.

There are lots of examples; crawl through the unsuccessful RFA candidacies and you'll find more. In all, a little more than half of the RFA noms in February 2008 passed - 30 of 57. I think you have a grasp on the basics of the janitor's job, and I think you'll be a good admin. However, I strongly suggest you spend a few weeks improving articles or starting new ones, even stubs, before standing for RFA. I keep pushing WP:AFC because it is a wonderful place to get that experience. The ideas are provided for you, you'll prove that you understand what is notable and what is not, what has sources and what does not, and you may find a subject in which you'll become interested. I know you're itching to get this RFA done, but I want your nom to do well the first time, and I'm coming from a place of love when I say that you should wait. *hugs*

What do you think? - KrakatoaKatie 04:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The silence is deafening... - KrakatoaKatie 05:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I had not notice you had replied! I don't think I'll ever be able to write as much as you just did above ;) I've been reading several RfAs and have noticed that vandal fighting only candidates don't do great! Is it helpful for me to contribute to RfAs (I know I can)? I want to work to get a Good/Featured article but have been waiting for the right one. I have found List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cambridgeshire, which I think I can get up to featured list standard. This is not as good as featured article but it shows something! It is very repitive, but I will finish it eventaly.

I'll go and try and get involved in requests for creation and see how I get on. I'll also go and read some more RfAs ;) Tiddly-Tom 08:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break the second

Great! I think I read somewhere this past week that featured lists are overtaking featured articles in number or rate of approval or something. And you're right about those who go to RFA with only vandal whacking, 'cause it's not pretty, and those candidates almost always seem surprised it turns out that way. Anyone who follows RFA at all can see that trend. RFA seems to be getting harder because the whole Archtransit thing has disturbed a lot of people. As far as writing a lot up above here, I don't do it all at once – sometimes I use an external text editor and work on it for a while, sometimes I keep the edit window open for a long time while I'm thinking, but I rarely just sit down and write at one sitting. It just looks like I do because I try to make only one or two actual, saved edits. One of my pet peeves is to find an article history full of 100 edits, from only one editor, spaced two minutes apart with each edit consisting only of tiny little changes like a period here or two words there. If I'm trying to find the particular diff where a certain sentence was changed and I have to look through 54 edits in one hour, it makes me want to throttle somebody.

Okay, off to AFC and Cambridgeshire with you, and I'll check in in a couple of weeks. Write, write, write! :-D - KrakatoaKatie 19:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the article. I am still keen on getting it done, but will the RfA crew mind that most of it is mind numbingly copying and pasting, changing appropriate stuff? I have some stuff coming up in real life - exams, whoopie! So probably wont be too active. I'll speak to you in a few weeks and we can see how we are getting on. Thanks for your advice so far! Tiddly-Tom 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)